The accompanying variation method says that if we find in a number of situations leading to a particular effect, a certain property of the effect, which varies with the variation in a factor common to these situations, then we can deduce this factor as cause. Mill`s Methods are five methods of induction described by the philosopher John Stuart Mill in his book A System of Logic, published in 1843. [1] That they shed light on questions of causality. Although Mill`s methods are an important part of the serious study of natural phenomena, they have important constraints. Careful application of these methods will only be possible if all relevant pre-anticipated circumstances are taken into consideration, which is not guaranteed in advance. For a property to be a necessary condition, it must always be present when the effect is present. As is the case, it is in our interest to examine cases where the effect is present and to take into consideration the properties present and those that are considered as „possible necessary conditions“. Obviously, not all properties missing when the effect is present can be necessary conditions of action. In comparative politics, this method is more generally referred to as the most diverse system design. Symbolically, the method of correspondence can be presented as: symbolically, the common method of correspondence and difference can be presented as: Also simply called the „common method“, this principle simply represents the application of the methods of conformity and difference.
In this particular case, you are the only one who has not fallen ill. The only difference between you and others is that you didn`t eat a salad. This is probably the cause of other people`s illnesses. This is an application of the method of difference. This rule states that if you have a situation that has one effect, and another that does not, and the only difference is the presence of a single factor in the first situation, we can deduce this factor as the cause of the effect. The common method is to apply both the concordance method and the difference method as shown in the graph above. The application of the common method should therefore tell us that this time it is beef that is the cause. This diagram of argument illustrates Mills` residue method: many elements of a complex effect result from reliable cause-and-effect beliefs of several elements of a complex cause; What remains of the effect must then have been produced by what remains of the cause. Note that if we adopt the truth of all the causal relationships involved, this method becomes an application of deductive thinking.
But what is sufficient evidence of causality? Although we typically use conditional statements to express our causal beliefs, the logical connection, known as material implication, seems to capture only part of what we have in mind. . . .